Dataset Information

The effectiveness of teleconsultations in primary care: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has focussed attention on models of healthcare that avoid face-to-face contacts between clinicians and patients, and teleconsultations have become the preferred mode of primary care delivery. However, the effectiveness of remote consultations in this setting remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of telephone or video consultations compared to those conducted face-to-face on key patient-relevant outcomes and healthcare utilisation in primary care, mental health and allied health services, which have had a critical role in the management of the wider and longer-term consequences of COVID-19.

Methods

A systematic review of primary studies comparing telephone or video consultations versus face-to-face visits, following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Overall, consultations delivered by telephone and videoconference were as effective as face-to-face in-person visits to improve clinical outcomes in adults with mental health conditions and those attending primary care services. Patient satisfaction with telephone and video consultations and the therapeutic alliance was high across the studies. However, high discontinuation rates in patients receiving teleconsultations indicate this may not be a suitable modality of healthcare delivery for all patients. Teleconsultations offer significant patient time savings in primary care, but appropriate implementation, including training of healthcare professionals and management of technical issues, is essential to ensure effective and valuable clinical interventions.

Conclusions

Teleconsultations via telephone or videoconference are an effective alternative to face-to-face consultations for many patients attending primary care and mental health services. Teleconsultations have the potential to deliver time-efficient and lower-cost interventions at a distance while improving access to healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Carrillo de Albornoz S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, registered nurses (RNs) are increasingly working in primary care interdisciplinary teams. Although existing literature provides some information about the contributions of RNs towards outcomes of care, further evidence on RN workforce contributions, specifically towards patient-level outcomes, is needed. This study synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search of databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, Embase) was performed using applicable subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through grey literature searches (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, websites, reference lists of included articles). Quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN) that reported related outcomes were included. Articles were screened independently by two researchers and assessed for bias using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity in study designs, RN-led interventions, and outcome measures across included studies.ResultsForty-six patient outcomes were identified across 23 studies. Outcomes were categorized in accordance with the PaRIS Conceptual Framework (patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, health behaviours) and an additional category added by the research team (biomarkers). Primary care RN-led interventions resulted in improvements within each outcome category, specifically with respect to weight loss, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, blood pressure and glycemic control, exercise self-efficacy, social activity, improved diet and physical activity levels, and reduced tobacco use. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with RN-led care.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care, specifically with respect to satisfaction, enablement, quality of life, self-efficacy, and improvements in health behaviours. Ongoing evaluation that accounts for primary care RNs' unique scope of practice and emphasizes the patient experience is necessary to optimize the delivery of patient-centered primary care.Protocol registration idPROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2018. ID=CRD42 018090767 .

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, policy-makers and health administrators are seeking evidence to inform further integration and optimal utilization of registered nurses (RNs) within primary care teams. Although existing literature provides some information regarding RN contributions, further evidence on the impact of RNs towards quality and cost of care is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of this role on health system outcomes. In this study we synthesize international evidence on the effectiveness of RNs on care delivery and system-level outcomes in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, and Embase for published literature and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and MedNar for unpublished literature between 2019 and 2022 using relevant subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through Google Scholar, websites, and reference lists of included articles. Studies were included if they measured effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN within the context of an independent or interdependent role) and reported outcomes of these interventions. Included studies were published in English; no date or location restrictions were applied. Risk of bias was assessed using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. Due to the heterogeneity of included studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsSeventeen articles were eligible for inclusion, with 11 examining system outcomes (e.g., cost, workload) and 15 reporting on outcomes related to care delivery (e.g., illness management, quality of smoking cessation support). The studies suggest that RN-led care may have an impact on outcomes, specifically in relation to the provision of medication management, patient triage, chronic disease management, sexual health, routine preventative care, health promotion/education, and self-management interventions (e.g. smoking cessation support).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that primary care RNs impact the delivery of quality primary care, and that RN-led care may complement and potentially enhance primary care delivered by other primary care providers. Ongoing evaluation in this area is important to further refine nursing scope of practice policy, determine the impact of RN-led care on outcomes, and inform improvements to primary care infrastructure and systems management to meet care needs.Protocol registration idPROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2018. ID= CRD42018090767 .

Project description:ObjectivesMental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesWe searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases.Eligibility criteriaAll quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsFifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.ConclusionsWhile there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown.AimsThe aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care.MethodsA systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity.ResultsThree randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions.ConclusionsThere is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundChronic respiratory diseases (CRD), are common public health problems with high prevalence, disability and mortality rates worldwide. Further uneven distribution of the health workforce is a major barrier to the effective diagnosis and treatment of CRDs. Teleconsultation between a specialist and non-specialist could possibly bridge the gap in access to health care and decrease CRD burden in remote areas. This review investigates the evidence for the effective use of specialist to non-specialist teleconsultation in the management of CRDs in remote areas and identifies instances of good practice and knowledge gaps.MethodsWe searched for articles till November 2020, which focused on specialist to non-specialist teleconsultations for CRD diagnosis or management. Two independent reviewers conducted the title and abstract screening and extracted data from the selected papers and the quality was assessed by Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) tool. A descriptive and narrative approach was used due to the heterogeneous nature of the selected studies.ResultsWe found 1715, articles that met the initial search criteria, but after excluding duplicates and non-eligible articles, we included 10 research articles of moderate quality. These articles were from nine different studies, all of which, except one, were conducted in high-income countries. The studies reported results in terms of impact on the patients, and the health care providers including primary care physicians (PCP) and specialists. The teleconsulting systems used in all the selected papers primarily used audio modes in addition to other modes like the audio-video medium. The included studies reported primarily non-clinical outcomes including effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability and usability of the teleconsultation systems and only three described the clinical outcomes. The teleconsultation was predominantly conducted in the PCP's office with the specialist located remotely.ConclusionsWe found relatively few, papers which explored specialist to non-specialist teleconsultation in management of CRDs, and no controlled trials. Two of the included papers described systems, which were used for other diseases in addition to the CRD. The available literature although not generalisable, encourages the use of specialist to non-specialist teleconsultation for diagnosis and management of CRDs.